Access to Marinas during Covid 19 restrictions

[Graham376]

That's almost certainly wishful thinking, you know.

O.K so I'll change that to - no reported local cases so far

 

[Blue Sunray]

Perhaps.

However I find most owners intelligent and responsible people. If anything they are (rightly) obsessed with social distancing. Typical pontoons provide a perfect way to keep your distance - they are short so you can see someone coming, and they have fingers, so you can walk down a finger while they pass. Once on a boat, you are more than safely socially distanced. Nearly everyone drives to a marina and there is plenty of space and room, often with parking very close to pontoon access.

Unfortunately the recent messages from Lymington HM (in particular), Hamble HM and Pompey MoD Plod have shown your optimism to be misplaced, or alternatively you are correct about the majority but a significant minority is all it takes for there to be a problem.

 

[ip485]

I will look those up but very sadly we have also to be sceptical about what plod has to say as my example which I personally witnessed sets out earlier in this thread and the examples posted using drones where the "terrible" people were actually isolating themselves a great deal more effictively that most.

 

[Old Harry]

A woman has been fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after she refused to tell police who she was and why she was at a railway station.

Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested at Newcastle Central Station at 08:00 GMT on Saturday.

North Tyneside Magistrates' Court imposed a £660 fine under the Coronavirus Act 2020 on Monday.

Dinou, who did not enter a plea, was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £66 and costs of £85.

 

[FlyingGoose]

A woman has been fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after she refused to tell police who she was and why she was at a railway station.

Marie Dinou, 41, from York, was arrested at Newcastle Central Station at 08:00 GMT on Saturday.

North Tyneside Magistrates' Court imposed a £660 fine under the Coronavirus Act 2020 on Monday.

Dinou, who did not enter a plea, was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £66 and costs of £85.

Right of appeal and take it to a higher court, I think we have not heard the last of this , but it is an interesting outcome

 

[Old Harry]

Right of appeal and take it to a higher court, I think we have not heard the last of this , but it is an interesting outcome

Only the rich & those backed by pressure groups ,can afford that

 

[duncan99210]

Right of appeal and take it to a higher court, I think we have not heard the last of this , but it is an interesting outcome

I think you’ll find that you are obliged to provide your name and address and offer an explanation as to why you’re in a particular location. It‘s the failure to do that rather than being at the station that lies at the heart of the offence. You could argue about the reasonableness or otherwise of why she was at the station: that’d be open to appeal but to refuse to provide the information required is just not terribly clever.

 

[FlyingGoose]

I think you’ll find that you are obliged to provide your name and address and offer an explanation as to why you’re in a particular location. It‘s the failure to do that rather than being at the station that lies at the heart of the offence. You could argue about the reasonableness or otherwise of why she was at the station: that’d be open to appeal but to refuse to provide the information required is just not terribly clever.

Yes that was stupid so is the offence not supplying the details or in breach of the lockdown , as usual the press and News are as vague as usual

 

[Blue Sunray]

Yes that was stupid so is the offence not supplying the details or in breach of the lockdown , as usual the press and News are as vague as usual

Nothing vague at all (for once):

"A woman has been fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after she refused to tell police who she was and why she was at a railway station. "

Woman fined £660 for breaching coronavirus rules

 

[FlyingGoose]

Nothing vague at all (for once):

A woman has been fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after she refused to tell police who she was and why she was at a railway station.
Woman fined £660 for breaching coronavirus rules

I am sure if she engaged with then and gave a reasonable explanation she would have walked

British Transport Police assistant chief constable Sean O'Callaghan said enforcement of the new legislation was a last resort.

"In this case, officers tried their utmost best to engage with Dinou.

"I can assure you we would much rather not have to take such action."

People risk committing an offence if they appear to be breaching restrictions laid out in the emergency legislation and fail to give a reasonable excuse when challenged.

I think the word here is reasonable , and she never entered a plea in court therefore the Judge had no other choice but to fine her . not conclusive at all

 

[wiggy]

I think “no unnecessary travel” pretty much sums it up. Going to the boat is not necessary. We all need to do our bit and stay home. Oh, must get the bins back in............

 

[penberth3]

A woman has been fined for breaching coronavirus restrictions after she refused to tell police who she was and why she was at a railway station.
Woman fined £660 for breaching coronavirus rules

I am sure if she engaged with then and gave a reasonable explanation she would have walked

British Transport Police assistant chief constable Sean O'Callaghan said enforcement of the new legislation was a last resort.

"In this case, officers tried their utmost best to engage with Dinou.

Exactly. Sounds like an attitude problem. Does the size of the fine suggest other factors were involved?

 

[ip485]

I think “no unnecessary travel” pretty much sums it up. Going to the boat is not necessary. We all need to do our bit and stay home. Oh, must get the bins back in............

FWIW you are confusing the law with our Government's recommendation. You may disagree with the law, and you may disagree with their recommendation, but they are two very different things. That is the law.

 

[penberth3]

FWIW you are confusing the law with our Government's recommendation. You may disagree with the law, and you may disagree with their recommendation, but they are two very different things. That is the law.

Guidance (and Codes of Practice) are there to help interpret the law. They should be read together. Remember, all this is being done in a hurry, legislation usually takes months of committees, consultation, rewriting, etc.

 

[FlyingGoose]

17. Rarely, a defendant may refuse to plead when asked, either directly ("I withhold my plea") or indirectly (by staying silent). If this is the case, the magistrates will enter a plea of not guilty on the defendant's behalf and proceed accordingly

If you enter a not guilty plea, or decided not to say what your plea is, the court will hear the opinions of the prosecutor and the criminal defence solicitor as to where the trial should take place - Crown Court or Magistrates Court
The hearing - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales)

Yes it seems an attitude problem , as she did not enter a pleas the courts are forced to take a non guilty verdict and then they magistrates found her guilty
If she pleaded not guilty, Pleading not guilty means that you say you didn’t do the crime, or that you had a reasonable excuse for doing so. The court will then have a trial to decide whether you did . should have went to trial but she clearly was not wanting to cooperate in any way,

 

[ip485]

Guidance (and Codes of Practice) are there to help interpret the law. They should be read together. Remember, all this is being done in a hurry, legislation usually takes months of committees, consultation, rewriting, etc.

Exactly, for a very good reason.

Gudiance is given and is relevant when a law has been passed - it is not relevant until a law has been passed. In this case no law has been passed. Under the emergency provision a law could proably have been passed without the due process to which you refer (as dangerous as this would be). The fact the Government did not, and has not taken this course is probably indictative that they chose not too at the moment for very good reason. The point at which you determine what is an essential need to one man, and not another, I suspect is a very dangerous point indeed. If an elderly person decides to go for a drive and sit in their car on the seafront without getting out because they need to for their well being, should the law dictate they mustnt?

I had parents in their 90s who, had this been the case, would probably have committed suicide (and I mean that very serioulsy).

I know nothing of the case referred yet so any comment is with caution. If asked where you are going the law probably requires you to say. That is the extent of it. I dont know whether the person has any where to go - I wonder. I dont know whether the person knew their rights. Proabaly doubtful. For all we know they may have been homeless. I am sure it would be very useful to ask a homless person where they were going and see the result when they said this street is my home - I have no where else to go.

The fact of the matter is it would seem this person was dragged to Court - and to what end? They possible have no means to pay the fine, and no where to go. I suspect we should question exactly why this action was felt necessary and hear the facts before jumping to conclusion.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

In WW2, as a child, I had to wear a bracelet with my identity number on it, at all times out of the house. Adults had to have their identity card with them at all times. Fined if you didn’t (or parents). D.O.R.A repealed shortly after the end of war. Don’t see what all the fuss is about. Trouble is liberal regimes rely on people behaving unselfishly for the common good; during the last 40 or so years the common good has not been much in evidence. Result: selfishness

 

[ip485]

In WW2, as a child, I had to wear a bracelet with my identity number on it, at all times out of the house. Adults had to have their identity card with them at all times. Fined if you didn’t (or parents). D.O.R.A repealed shortly after the end of war. Don’t see what all the fuss is about. Trouble is liberal regimes rely on people behaving unselfishly for the common good; during the last 40 or so years the common good has not been much in evidence. Result: selfishness

Yes, completely agree.

 

[penberth3]

Exactly, for a very good reason.

Gudiance is given and is relevant when a law has been passed - it is not relevant until a law has been passed. In this case no law has been passed.....

Hang on, a number of laws have been passed over the last week or two - you've been debating the details on this thread.

 

[PaulRainbow]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf